Humanism: theoretical, elitist & speciesist?
Milton Keynes Humanists’ next meeting is entitled ‘Why I am a Humanist’, and in preparation we thought it would be interesting to test the strength of argument against Humanism. If you put ‘Why I am NOT a Humanist’ into Google, apart from the inevitable sniping, you’ll find some interesting and coherent criticism. This comes not so much from religionists but from atheists and freethinkers. I have drawn heavily on this material in preparing the following summary and would be interested to get other Humanist’s views on the matter.
1 Elitist
Humanism is a philosophy for the educated, well-to-do and privileged; it is not for those living in dire poverty and hardship for whom stories of a benevolent ‘Heavenly Father’ and being ‘reunited with loved ones’ are understandable (many have had little or no schooling) and provide some hope and comfort in a hard life. (It is not easy to accept the Atheist’s idea of a ‘pointless universe’ and ‘eternal oblivion’.)
2 Theoretical
Humanism comes across as more of an intellectual endeavour than an emotionally-engaging philosophy. Contrast the mainstream religions which involve elaborate systems of rituals and practices that provide a context for people’s beliefs and values, and help channel their feelings and emotions. What most people yearn for is answers not endless questions, uncertainty and debate.
3 Talking Shop
Humanist groups are little more than talking shops which singularly fail to engage with the community. Humanists shouldn’t just tell people how to live a good life, they should show them — organise social work, support local charities, start community gardens, offer courses in local centres, hold fetes and public barbecues, etc.
4 Proto-Humanists
It is invidious to describe early philosophers as ‘humanist’. Democritus and Epicurus are sometimes cited as ‘forefathers of humanism’ but they are just as much the precursors of scientific rationalism. Nothing is gained by calling them proto-humanists except to try and give Humanism some sort of historical weight and worth.
5 Belief
Why should anyone ‘believe in Man’ or have ‘faith in humanity’? Homo sapiens might have produced Einstein, Leonardo and Shakespeare but it has also given us Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. The notion that man is at the pinnacle of evolution is pompous and egotistical.
6 Speciesist
Adulation of the human intellect (unique as it appears to be) encourages the old-fashioned nonsense that men and women are somehow set apart from other living organisms — or worse, that the human race has an evolutionary destiny to conquer and subdue nature. This attitude only encourages the cruel exploitation of animals for food, clothing, experiments and sport.
7 Imperialist
Humanism is imperialistic: it asks people to follow an essentially western world view and fails to acknowledge the huge diversity of human culture and experience.
8 Institutionalised Thinking
Some freethinkers are against any institutionalisation of their life-philosophy, be it by Humanists, Atheists or whoever. They don’t want to associate themselves with movements for fear of taint or compromise, and they don’t want to join a club, however benign it may appear, because of the risk it will acquire undesirable institutional paraphernalia — dogma, abuse of power, cronyism and the cult of personality. The search for and maintenance of ‘the truth’ is more important than contrived efforts always to seem positive.
I’ve done my best to make the arguments robust but I can’t help feeling that some of the above are simply the result of misunderstanding (and in some cases outright misrepresentations) of what Humanists stand for; ‘straw men’ set up to be knocked down. That said a few of the comments do give me pause for thought, notably points 1, 2 and 3 — as do people who stridently promote ‘The Truth’, whether they are coming from a religious or a secular platform. (Is truth ever absolute?) I don’t think soap-boxing is very effective when it comes to penetrating the mind-set of people indoctrinated in religion from an early age and it does little to promote understanding and social harmony.
Humanism may not have a Unique Selling Point but it does provide a good platform for those who reject blind faith and superstition and find hedonistic consumerism deeply unsatisfying. For my part I am more than happy to be in a movement that strives to make the world a better place by promoting freedom of thought, social responsibility and consideration for others. And I’ve not so far come across anything to shake my faith in Humanism and what it has to offer.
Milton Keynes Humanists’ next meeting is on Thursday 14th June. All welcome — see: www.mkhumanists.org.uk. The views expressed in this note are personal and do not necessarily represent the views of Milton Keynes Humanists.
By Mike Flood, Chair of Milton Keynes Humanists.
Humanism: theoretical, elitist & speciesist?,
I think we have to allow that education does build the most significant bridge leading away from infant belief systems, and education is heavily favoured towards the more affluent. However literature is far more available today and thinking skills arguably outweigh facts and figures. Thinking skills are not necessarily the monopoly of privileged or higher education. Road sweepers do sudoku too. Besides a look at most mainstream congregations will tell you that affluence is an ever present part of the religious quorum. The Vatican certainly cannot claim a link between poverty and faith.
Hope and comfort are attractive qualities for the poverty stricken, however so are sex, narcotics and alcohol. Hope and comfort are more readily available to the poor in chemistry than in religion. Eternal life and eternal oblivion seem like twin evils. Imagine it never being over. Even heaven has shelf life surely.
Intellectual endeavour is humanity’s greatest attribute and the intellectual energy required to construct supernatural mythology far outweighs that required to do arithmetic.
Mainstream religions offer spectacle and activity, so do fairgrounds, TV and theatre to a far higher population base. Yearning for answers does not equate to yearning for proofless propositions. Prayer has been shown to affect mood levels due to persistent disappointment and pressure to do well.
Humanism will have to offer more social interaction however religion is not the origin of charity. And besides humanism extends far beyond humanist groups. It its already prevalent in sport for example. The Olympics are about human flourishment. One must ask how many fetes are for church projects. When did religion last grant thousands to a scientific projects dedicated to material truth?
Humanism has great historical weight and worth, remember Socrates was condemned for his challenge to the gods, and christianity is largely built on Greek mythology complete with its man-gods; ring a bell? David Hume???
Human beings demonstrably exist. Einstein, Leonardo and Shakespeare were human as were Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Strangely enough, Hitler was catholic and asserted he was doing God’s work”. Atheism has a tenuous link to totalitarianism where divine commandment is by definition tyrannical.
Humanism does not claim man is the pinnacle of evolution. Evolution by definition has no pinnacle. Evolution continues. it is faith that posits pinnacles and nadirs. It is it which is hierarchical and deeply sexist. It will prevent women becoming clerics but will protect male paedophiles. That is astonishing male/female bias.
It was God who gave man dominion over the animals, humanist are usually open to animal rights rather than animal and human sacrifice.
Religion crusades and colonises far more than humanism ever has. By definition, humanism is not about the dismissal of global intellect. It was religion that suppressed philosophy until the east fought back. It was religion that gave birth to the sinner and the worm like status of humanity.
institutionalised thinking which by definition religion is prevents the disturbance of entrenched lies and proofless positions. It is important not to confuse free thinkers with pathologically rebellious thinkers.
Free thinkers merely wish to think without persistent commandment mentality. They want to change their beliefs as the evidence changes, not propose all new data as more proof of gods expansiveness. Humanists simply point out that their eyes are their own, not gods.
Humanism at heart merely holds that it its better to love one another because we are all here together, not that we will be segregated, with some becoming burnt offerings; Holo-causts. Hitler God his ideas for carrying out Gods work from Somewhere. The Bible describes and pre scribes more torture, genocide, and global catastrophe.
On a final note humanists seek to celebrate life not death. The eternal after life sits behind every suicide bomber and many suicides because it posits this life as the lesser life. To worship a torn, twisted and dead being of human qualities its akin to worshipping a death row prisoner. It is inhumane at a deep level.
And I am just getting started…
Most definitely speciesist, but I would consider anyone who consumes animals or uses animal products a speciesist. The human capacity to ignore animal suffering and to accept the needless death of billions of animals never fails to amaze me!
As for point 3, humanists are involved in raising funds, organising, volunteering etc etc. They just don’t do it in the name of humanism.
Most people who get involved do so because they have an interest in the particular thing they are working for, be it cancer research, animal welfare or school football. It is no longer necessary to have religions involved, we are quite capable of working together, religious and non-religious in a common cause.
As an aside though there are some fund-raising activities which are purely church-related, these are the ones which raise money for the church. Whether or not these should be classified as disinterested or self-interested I leave to you to decide.
I found this a really helpful article, and I don’t think the points Mike raises can all be as simply dismissed as David F suggests.
To take the first point: as humanists, we shouldn’t be afraid to accept that religion provides benefits to many people. Otherwise it would have died out long ago. If someone in dire circumstances gets comfort from a belief in the afterlife or reincarrnation, then it is surely wrong for a humanist to come along and try to take that away from them. This would be putting the self-satisfaction of the humanist in imposing “the truth” and “being right” against the humanist (and religious) principle of the Golden Rule to empathise with the other person and treat them compassionately – the worst type of intolerance as it actively damages the well-being of another person.
To behave in a compassionate way doesn’t threaten the beliefs of humanists. Nor does it imply that we should not vigorously challenge religious privilege and bad actions carried out in the name of religion (or for any other reason). But, other things being equal, being compassionate surely trumps being “right”.
@ John Morsley
surely the same should be said for anyone who consumes plant products
you sir, are a kingdomist, there i’ve said it
With reference to point 8, I wonder whether the reluctance of many freethinkers to label themselves or align themselves with organisations makes fundraising and recruitment more difficult for the BHA. A huge number of people in the UK would agree in principle with the aims of the BHA, but are happy to let them operate tirelessly on a shoestring instead of lending them financial and moral support.
I have jotted down some notes which try to indicate how I’d reply if I had the time to write a book… they can be downloaded in PDF form from https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0BAqQSNSQT5TXpGV29qOFlCWlU
You’re absolutely right about many of these points. My first experience of Humanism was a lecture at UCL that just left me with the certainty that Humanists were so out of touch with the daily lives of the majority of actual humans that it wasn’t worth joining…
Humanism DOES have a unique selling point, however. Put in its simplest form, this is that human beings should and must become the central value in any considerations.
Think for just a second about what that means. Human beings above religion. Human beings above national interests. Human beings above corporate interests.
Isn’t this something that strikes a cord with almost everyone?
On point 6 – this poisonous anti-human prejudice is one of the ones that makes me, as a humanist, the most angry.
People who cry ‘speciesism!’ are demonstrating naked misanthropy. This is an attempt to cut humanity down to size – to claim that we are just jumped-up animals who have illegitimately assumed a position of authority, and that we should wake up to ourselves and (paradoxically) get back down where we belong, amongst the worms and cockroaches.
Do I really have to elaborate on what a humanist response to this idea should be?
I’m sure readers are imaginative enough to come up with arguments to counter this anti-humanist idea (along with the others listed in Mike’s article), but here’s a few of mine against point 6:
Our own case for special pleading is clear. It is only necessary to point out that human beings are entitled to special pleading because we are the only beings that are capable of coming up with an *idea* like ‘special pleading’ and of understanding what its significance is.
To those of us who believe in the potential of the Enlightenment Humanist idea of human perfectibility – the improvement of the human condition via the application of (uniquely human) agencies: science, rational inquiry, politics and so on – the accusation of ‘speciesism’ is also distressing and disgusting.
Animals cannot have rights for the simple reason that they can neither appreciate nor exercise those rights, and arguing that they should have them makes a mockery of the struggle for human equality and progress.
Let’s clarify this with an example.
Those of us that care are justified in calling the denial of the vote to women sexist and claiming it entrenched inequality.
Now try arguing that animals should have the right to vote because denying them this is speciesist and entrenches inequality.
How absurd and infantile this is – what an insult to those who struggled to realize this important human freedom. Rights are a uniquely human idea that can only make sense to *us*.
As Peter Staudenmaier argues:
‘The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women’s movement is trivializing and ahistorical….No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, “We’re sentient beings too!” They argued, “We’re fully human too!” Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it.’
(‘Ambiguities of Animal Rights’, COMMUNALISM: International Journal for a Rational Society, issue 5, March 2003.
(A point aside – when this argument is presented, it is worth always reminding ourselves that calling for rights for those who cannot exercise them is logically untenable and is a tactic also used by pro-’life’ activists. This is because in practice, of course, it means not ‘give animals rights’ or ‘give a foetus rights’ but ‘give *my group* rights’ over what happens to animals, the foetus, etc.)
So as soon as we start to degrade human beings down to the level of animals, we start to degrade the Humanist project itself. Does this mean that we have to be indifferent to causing the physical suffering of animals? Of course not.
In ‘Aping Mankind’, a passionate and uncompromisingly logical affirmation of human uniqueness, Ray Tallis puts this well:
‘I have no doubt that animals are aware and that they are capable of suffering and that this imposes a moral obligation on us to treat them with as much kindness as is compatible with their playing their necessary role in human life.’
(From Chapter Six, ‘The Sighted Watchmaker’:'Concluding note: To head off misunderstanding’, p.239.)
And are we ‘discriminating against animals’ by taking a Humanist perspective? Absolutely.
Any view that takes a consistent, principled, philosophically-argued position – i.e. one that is actually *worthwhile* – arrives at it via a dialectic process of intelligent, rational, informed discrimination.
Let’s not be apologetic about Nathan’s ‘unique selling point’ – Human beings above animals.
We have discussed this in Lynn Humanists and touched on many of the above issues. Our own name is in recognition of humanism as a broad, familiar and generally tolerant (and tolerated) outlook. There is a family of views mixing negative and positive identifiers – nontheist, agnostic, atheist, irreligious, secular, humanist, freethinking, rational, sceptical, scientific – with much overlap.
The point about institutionalism is particularly serious for both practice and philosophy. ‘Humanism’ can too easily sound like a religion to many. The ‘undesirable institutional paraphernalia’ are a danger, partly because so seductive to leaders and organisations, but most importantly because they strike at the principle of humanism as a liberal historic movement that specifically reacts against authority. The BHA itself is merely one strand in a tapestry toward a clearer and better image of humankind to give direction to our lives. Anyone wanting the control of dogma and personality should join a church.
Humanism is generally optimistic about human nature. That can certainly be challenged as dubious, but it is surely the best bet. Indeed, it is the only view that can meaningfully sustain a worthwhile life.